[Opensim-dev] Development models (was Re: The essence of "grid")

[Ideia Boa]

If we want to watch the birth of a so-called Web 3D, welcome Diva and 
welcome Hypergrid.
If we want to have a clone of SL, but with the option of different 
grids, welcome all development aid, including Hypergrid, as this is also 
a dream of LL.
But if we only want to have a bad clone of the SL in standalone, we can 
stop the development now, nothing more is needed to have a game for some 
hours.

For me I support and I want to watch the birth of the Web 3D, I already 
attended the birth of the web, even before that, I work with some BBSs, 
then I went to the web 2, and I do not want to lose the opportunity and 
maybe I am not the onlyone, from the inside wanting to attend the birth 
of the future Web

Ideia Boa


Dahlia Trimble wrote:
> Personally I prefer OpenSim in standalone mode, and my preference is 
> for it to be a personal simulation server allowing multiple dissimilar 
> clients to attach and share a simulation; one which may deviate quite 
> a but from the normal SL experience. I realize I'm in a minority with 
> this position compared to other core developers, and as such I do a 
> majority of my development and testing in grid mode and with hypergrid 
> using various viewers, primarily those based on the LL viewer, but 
> also using other viewers not derived from the LL viewer.
>
> Many of the users of OpenSim have their own ideas about how the 
> platform should evolve, and hypergrid appears to (at least 
> anecdotally) be a popular feature. It also requires substantial 
> changes to the core architecture for proper implementation, and 
> bringing hypergrid and diva into core has allowed her to make a 
> substantial improvement to many parts of the code which deal with 
> standalone and grid operation in addition to hypergrid. I see no lack 
> of benefit to any of our users from bringing diva and hypergrid into core.
>
> Anyway, last I checked, time still only moves forward so please 
> continue to offer suggestions for improvement and they will be 
> considered :)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson at hp.com 
> <mailto:mike.dickson at hp.com>> wrote:
>
>     Justin, thanks for clarifying the process. And I certainly understand
>     the interest in Hypergrid and the energy behind it. Charles your
>     message
>     was also helpful in highlighting to me what is at the center of my
>     concern.  I agree the development process is somewhat chaotic and
>     things
>     get hacked in based on interest.  That's probably completely to be
>     expected though it may not make for the best platform going forward.
>
>     Using Hypergrid as an example,my preference would be to do it
>     outside of
>     core. So let me explain that.  Something like Hypergrid is going to
>     require a different usage model from the original core (different
>     protocols for "teleporting", now the exploration around inventory,
>     etc).
>     Rather than have the changes to handle that get introduced into
>     core I'd
>     have preferred to see something like an RFC that documents what is
>     being
>     proposed, and what "interfaces" need to be changed in order to
>     accommodate the new use cases.  That RFC gets iterated and the
>     interfaces evolved to make "hypergrid" possible as a pluggable module.
>     Over time most likely the set of commonly used modules grows and you
>     ultimately end up with a core framework and a "core" set of
>     modules that
>     define what the out of the box functionality of an installation is
>     (standalone, hypergrid, what have you).
>
>     The obvious problem with this approach is that it requires
>     evolving the
>     core framework which is not nearly as "sexy" as hacking in new
>     features.
>     I've done both approaches.  Certainly a cool demo can go a long way to
>     sell a concept and often the change the framework process takes enough
>     time that prototypes don't happen. It's more work to maintain a
>     branched
>     copy of core while you evolve your prototype into a set of changed
>     interfaces that support it.  Personally I believe that more
>     disciplined
>     approach is the key to seeing OpenSim get to 1.0. And ultimately be a
>     better platform for experimentation.
>
>     So I like the concept of hypergrid.  I think prototypes like that need
>     to exist if only to prove that the community is healthy. But I also
>     believe that how the "framework" is defined and evolves is equally if
>     not more important (to me at least).
>
>     Just my 2 cents.
>
>     Mike
>
>     On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:35 +0000, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>     > But I do have to also point out that OpenSim development is
>     largely driven by the interest of the developers (since
>     > there's no single company behind it).  If there's a lot of
>     development interest behind Hypergrid then this is the
>     > direction that's inevitably going to progress most.  If people
>     coming along contributing code that enhances different
>     > architectures, then development will also be driven in that
>     direction.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Opensim-dev mailing list
>     Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de <mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
>     https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090417/ba0615ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ideiaboa.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 283 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090417/ba0615ab/attachment-0001.vcf>